Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 169 posts

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#51

Post by x15 »

This is a win-win situation for Google. I doubt they haven't done the maths. If they lose a percentage of the userbase, but get increased revenue, it's only logical to do that. If their userbase decreases, their monopoly status also decreases, making regulation harder.

The percentage of users who install firefox is low because of the inertia of the default. Having Google as the default search engine in firefox certainly didn't help.

Imagine downloading firefox to replace IE or Edge on a fresh Windows install and then immediately witness Chrome ads in your search results.

Mozilla should had disrupted the third party tracking/ads business, when it had the chance, by providing a default ad blocker and severing ties with no-privacy-respecting search engines (before Google disrupted the browsers market that is).

Google's Android browser is doing well by not supporting extensions, why would they miss the chance of additional revenue by not crippling their desktop browser the same way?

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#52

Post by ccnafr »

comex wrote: post #25

They've done nothing of the sort. The ZDNet article quotes: > "Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3," said Chrome engineer Devlin Cronin [emphasis his]. But the full quote shows what he's talking about: > Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no pla…

Actually that's the API feature that current ad blockers were using.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#53

Post by feanaro »

saagarjha wrote: post #46
rajeshmr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should read this part of the article too : "Their study --which analyzed the network performance of ad blockers such as uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus, Brave, DuckDuckGo and Cliqz'z Ghostery-- found sub-millisecond median decision times per request, showing quite the opposite of what the Chrome team claimed." What are they really optimizing for ? The sub-millisecond times per request is barely noticeable, an…

I read the article the quote was pulled from, as well as participated in the discussion and responded to the author when it was posted here. Just FYI, Safari (which already has this feature in the form of content blockers) is able to block ads just fine, and anecdotally the performance is slightly, but noticeably better.

The question still remains: what are they optimizing for if we already have sub-millisecond response times?

The only evidence you offer is anecdotal. I'm having a hard time imagining perceptible differences in sub-millisecond response times so either you or the study are in error.

And just to reiterate other comments: yes, Safari is probably able to block ads just fine now, because they modeled the engine according to capabilities needed right now. However, it comes at a huge cost to innovation and creates yet another barrier of entry guarded by a large corporation.

Taking all of that in account, it seems unnecessary. The looming threat of ulterior motives from Google remains ever-present.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#54

Post by feanaro »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #42
rajeshmr wrote: post #33

I never understand the intent behind introducing this move - is it greed for more ad money through lockdown ? The company is literally a monopoly and still it wants more. This seems like the company is bowing down for shareholder supremacy.

In my opinion its not really a conspiracy. People at Google are so far up their own ass that they don't understand the importance of content blockers. Personally I just can't deal with websites without ublock modifying them.

Depends on what you consider a "conspiracy". The word "conspiracy" sounds unnecessarily controversial and mysterious. It seems plausible and probable to me that there are economic motivating factors at play.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#55

Post by rajeshmr »

feanaro wrote: post #54
Tsubasachan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion its not really a conspiracy. People at Google are so far up their own ass that they don't understand the importance of content blockers. Personally I just can't deal with websites without ublock modifying them.

Depends on what you consider a "conspiracy". The word "conspiracy" sounds unnecessarily controversial and mysterious. It seems plausible and probable to me that there are economic motivating factors at play.

Indeed. It seems plausible!

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#56

Post by zuzun »

saagarjha wrote: post #46
rajeshmr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should read this part of the article too : "Their study --which analyzed the network performance of ad blockers such as uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus, Brave, DuckDuckGo and Cliqz'z Ghostery-- found sub-millisecond median decision times per request, showing quite the opposite of what the Chrome team claimed." What are they really optimizing for ? The sub-millisecond times per request is barely noticeable, an…

I read the article the quote was pulled from, as well as participated in the discussion and responded to the author when it was posted here. Just FYI, Safari (which already has this feature in the form of content blockers) is able to block ads just fine, and anecdotally the performance is slightly, but noticeably better.

JavaScript code will take a millisecond to decide whether to block a request or not and some hard-coded browser function will do it slightly faster, but not by much, because most of the work will be done by the same regular expression, so we are talking about fractions of a millisecond here and you claim to notice that?

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#57

Post by roca »

ccnafr wrote: post #52
comex wrote: post #25

They've done nothing of the sort. The ZDNet article quotes: > "Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3," said Chrome engineer Devlin Cronin [emphasis his]. But the full quote shows what he's talking about: > Another clarification is that the webRequest API is not going to be fully removed as part of Manifest V3. In particular, there are currently no pla…

Actually that's the API feature that current ad blockers were using.

How can that be? You can't block loads using only observational capabilities.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#58

Post by pgt »

Every year Stallman sounds less crazy. I used to think it didn't matter what tools I chose as a lone developer making consumer tech products and DSP audio applications. But over time, I saw that consumers rely on frontier-makers more than you think, even though they may lag behind by a few years.

I reluctantly switched to Firefox because it still has add-ons and since Chrome's web tools are so good. With Mozilla's Rust adoption, Firefox got fast. This means my web products work a little better on Firefox, intentional or not. When enough people make that choice, a tipping point forms in the future. Paul Graham wrote about this in "The Return of the Mac" [^1].

Don't underestimate the power of your choice at the frontier, even if it takes a while to reverberate through time.

[^1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#59

Post by Vogtinator »

pgt wrote: post #58

Every year Stallman sounds less crazy. I used to think it didn't matter what tools I chose as a lone developer making consumer tech products and DSP audio applications. But over time, I saw that consumers rely on frontier-makers more than you think, even though they may lag behind by a few years. I reluctantly switched to Firefox because it still has add-ons and since Chrome's web tools are so good. With Mozilla's Ru…

> With Mozilla's Rust adoption, Firefox got fast.

Those are unrelated.

Re: Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have crippled ad blockers

#60

Post by rat9988 »

Vogtinator wrote: post #59
pgt wrote: post #58

Every year Stallman sounds less crazy. I used to think it didn't matter what tools I chose as a lone developer making consumer tech products and DSP audio applications. But over time, I saw that consumers rely on frontier-makers more than you think, even though they may lag behind by a few years. I reluctantly switched to Firefox because it still has add-ons and since Chrome's web tools are so good. With Mozilla's Ru…

> With Mozilla's Rust adoption, Firefox got fast. Those are unrelated.

I wonder why people make such bold wrong claims.
Post reply on HN